Fiend at Court Unplugged
One of the most worrisome part of the ongoing USTA Tournament restructuring has been the repeated theme that tournaments have to adapt to “consumer preferences.” On the surface, that isn’t a bad thing if that decision is backed up with valid data that accurately captures consumer preferences specific to tennis tournaments. It is apparent that the USTA has decided that shortening the length of matches in general will lead to increased participation. I have yet to see tennis specific research that backs up that assertion. Additionally, while shorter formats may be better for local level tournaments, that same sentiment doesn’t translate to the National Levels of Competition.
Yesterday the Fiend at Court Unplugged series launched into disclosure and rationale of feedback that I recently submitted to the USTA Adult Competition Committee. The context is specific to Senior Women’s National Level events. The following talking point reflects my concern that the USTA might not have data supporting the initiatives or have properly segmented the data to enable meaningful analysis.
The USTA Adult Tournament Structure Must be Tailored to Different Constituencies
Point 2 from my feedback letter to the USTA ACC.
As the new tournament structure framework was unveiled, one of the most disturbing aspects was a hyper-focus on marketing tennis to the “consumer” along with the claim that market research shows that consumers are pressed for time and prefer shorter formats. (As an aside, I would love to see this consumer research if there is anything that can be shared.) On the surface, I see the wisdom in creating short formats for local tournaments (Level 6 and 7), however that consumer sentiment is not applicable to the players who compete at the National Level.
That paragraph clearly reflects my concern that the USTA doesn’t have tennis specific data that backs up the assertion that shorter formats are preferred within the tennis community. “Tennis has a Weird Obsession with Golf” is a fairly comprehensive breakdown of my thoughts on that point.
Additionally what is true about attracting new players to the tournament ecosystem at the Level 6-7 tiers does not necessarily translate to the National Level. The underlying difference was highlighted as follows:
When a player travels to a National tournament, there is considerable overhead cost in both money and time to compete in those events. The solution to getting more players to those events isn’t less tennis. Shortened formats and reduced opportunity for meaningful competitive matches is not a viable approach for National tournaments.
Point 2 continued from my feedback letter to the USTA ACC.
Quite simply, the “tennis consumer” who has to buy a plane ticket and pay for several nights of expensive lodging are less likely to do without the prospect of spending significant time on-court engaged in competitive match play. A single survey or data collection effort across all demographics will results in feedback from communities with vastly different overhead required to travel to an event that has to be taken into consideration in order to make good decisions on how tournaments should be structured.
One of my concerns is that the USTA may conflate feedback received from players or prospective players at the local level with feedback from players at the national level. When combined into one pool, the unique perspectives of the National tournament playing community will be overwhelmed by the much larger numbers of locally oriented tournament players. In other words, what most people want to see in tournaments is different across the 7 defined tiers of competition. Feedback collected, analyzed, and acted on must take that into consideration.
Point 2 continued from my feedback letter to the USTA ACC.
Quite simply, the USTA should be constructing a three tiered approach to attract, engage, and retain tennis tournament players. Those three tiers are National, Sectional, and Local Level Tournaments. Filling the pipeline with players at the local level is an essential part of the ecosystem. For the vast majority of tournament players that may be the only tournament level they ever engage in.
Some players will achieve a level of tennis mastery and enthusiasm that prompts them to engage with the next tier in order to continue to challenge themselves in competition. That is what gets players engaged in events at the Sectional Level. The same phenomenon occurs between the Sectional and National level. While there is some transition and overlap between the players who participate at each tier, these are largely independent contexts of participation.
It is an imperative that player feedback be considered within the context of the Level of tournament as defined by the USTA.
Point 2 bottom line summary from my feedback letter to the USTA ACC.
As a tennis community we have to do a much better job attracting, engaging, and retaining new players into the tournament ecosystem. However, those initiatives should not simultaneously drive away players who are already active tournament tennis. Hard data, segmented by playing communities, is needed to make good decisions. Hopefully the USTA hasn’t been acting on non-tennis specific data or data that obscures the perspectives of critical parts of the ecosystem. However, it sure looks exactly like that.
